xt7jm61bpb0g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7jm61bpb0g/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1973-04-30 minutes 2004ua061 English Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 30, 1973 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 30, 1973 1973 1973-04-30 2020 true xt7jm61bpb0g section xt7jm61bpb0g
3549
Minutes of the University Senate, April 23, 1973 — cont
dealing with academic problems which confront us. Thank you.
E
iii; we have made considerable progress over the last three years in A
. 6%
I
i There being no questions following his report the Senate adjourned at
f 4:30 p.m.
i Elbert W. Ockerman
§ Secretary , .
MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 30, 1973
The University Senate met in special session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, “E3”
April 30, 1973, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Adelstein
presided. Members absent: Staley F. Adams*, Arnold D. Albright, Lawrence A.
Allen, Harry H. Bailey*, James R. Barclay*, Charles E. Barnhart, Robert P.
Belin*, Thomas G. Berry, Robert H. Biggerstaff, Norman F. Billups*, Harold R.
Binkley*, Harry M. Bohannan, Robert N. Bostrom, Louis L. Boyarsky*, Garnett L.
Bradford*, Sally Brown, Lowell P. Bush*, S. K. Chan, David B. Clark*,
Lewis W. Cochran, Lewis Colten, José M. Concon, Glenwood, L. Creech, Guy M.
Davenport, Susan J. DeBrecht, George W. Denemark*, George A. Digenis*,
R. Lewis Donohew, Ray H. Dutt, Paul M. Eakin, Anthony Eardley, William Ecton,
William D. Ehmann*, Robert 0. Evans*, Jeanette Fallen, Claude Farley, 7
Thomas R. Ford, Stuart Forth*, Michael B. Freeman, James E. Funk*, R. Fletcher
Gabbard*, George H. Gadbois, Jess L. Gardner*, Willie A. Gates, John G.
Gattozzi, Thomas C. Gray, Jack B. Hall, Pierce Hamblin, Joseph Hamburg,
Charles F. Haywood*, Eileen Heise, James W. Herron, Andrew J. Hiatt,
Alfred S. L. Hu, Eugene Huff, Margaret Jones*, William S. Jordan*, Fred E.
Justus, John E. Keller*, Harold Laswell*, Robert G. Lawson, Harold Leggett,
Donald L. Madden*, David Mattingly, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Michael P. HERA
McQuillen*, George E. Mitchell*, Alvin L. Morris*, Brenda Oldfield, Blaine F.
Parker*, Bobby C. Pass, J. W. Patterson*, Michael Pease, Bertram Peretz*,
Alan R. Perreiah*, N. J. Pisacano*, William K. Plucknett, Virginia Rogers*,
Gerald I. Roth, Michael J. Ryan, John S. Scarborough, George W. Schwert,
Donald S. Shannon, D. Milton Shuffett, Eldon D. Smith, Robert H. Spedding*,
Earl L. Steele*, Alan Stein, Dennis Stuckey, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Lawrence X.
; ‘, Tarpey*, Nancy Totten*, H. Mac Vandiviere*, Stephen J. Vasek, Jacinto J.
ENE. ; Vazquez*, Lenore Wagner, William F. Wagner*, M. Stanley Wall, Scott
1?; ‘ Wendelsdorf, Raymond A. Wilkie, Harold Willoughby, Miroslava B. Winer*,
!:‘“ - William W. Winternitz, A. Wayne Wonderley*, Donald J. Wood, Leon Zolondek*,
Robert G. Zumwinkle*.
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 1973 were approved
as circulated with a correction of the first paragraph at the top of
page 5 to read: «A
The majority of each Subcommittee of the Senate, whether established
on a permanent or ad hoc basis, shall consist of members of the
Senate.
*Absence explained
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont 3550
Chairman Adelstein presented Dr. Otis A. Singletary, President of the
University of Kentucky, who addressed the University Senate. The context
of his address follows:
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Senate. I want to thank the
Chairman for the invitation to come here and speak with you this
afternoon. The invitation is mainly and primarily a matter of bud—
get, and particularly the operating budget of the University for
next year. There are a number of other topics that I think it
appropriate to touch on and will do so.
You probably read over the weekend in the paper about massive
administrative reorganization. The author of that article is here
with us today. Mr. Arder, I am glad to see you, and delighted to
have you with us. I would like to explain, for his benefit and yours
and my own, just exactly how massive this reorganization appears at
the moment. This goes to the point of fact that two Vice Presidents
of the University have decided to leave us and to take on other
assignments. Glenwood Creech, as you have no doubt read or heard,
has assumed the Presidency, or will assume it very shortly, of Florida
Atlantic University. The exact date of his departure has not been
set; he wants some leave time and I think it is a very wise choice
before undertaking his new duties, and I would guess that he will
officially be gone from here by July 1. A. D. Albright, as has
been reported and widely discussed in the press, has accepted the
executive directorship of the Council on Public Higher Education,
and I would like now to make it clear for the record that both of
these gentlemen have had my full support in their respective positions,
and both go with my blessings —— not that I think that means much
to them —— but at least they have them anyway. I think Glenwood is
ready and, by this own action, apparently willing to undertake the
headship of an institution, and having been close enough to one to
have seen what it is like, if he is that foolish, I think we have
no choice but to wish him well as he moves to Florida. A. D.'s going
to the Council is, I think, a stroke of good fortune for the entire
state. I believe that that job is likely to be more important in the
months ahead than it has ever been before. I think we are coming to
a fairly critical time in Kentucky about the role of that Council as it
affects the institution. Further, it is my belief, for whatever it
is worth, that he is going into that job when, for the very first time,
there is some real significant chance for it to operate with some
degree of effectiveness. He is going to be able to build a staff;
he does have a kind of consensus among the institutions in the state
that should, I believe, make his job easier, and I think there is
fairly widespread general agreement that this is an important time
for us to get on with some serious statewide planning in Kentucky.
I can't think of anybody who is more familiar with our problems in
this state or who will be better at securing, and evaluating, and inter~
preting the kinds of information on the basis of which decisions that
are going to have to be made in Kentucky, will be made. Without saying
more about that I will just repeat for you that the departure of two
vice presidents will require some adjustment. For the record, let me
make it clear that I have made no decision of any kind at this point
3551
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont
about what that adjustment will be. I am not prepared to say that
I am going to fill both jobs; I am not prepared to say that I am
going to fill either job; or what. I really don't know. I am
thinking very hard, at this point, about the restructuring of the
administrative position. It does seem to me that with the kind
of tight times we have, it is proper to think of retrenchment in
administrative circles. I know you will find that a very hard
message to accept, but it is at least one thought that is crossing
my mind, and I would say that I will come to grips with this problem
some time during this summer, and hope to take whatever steps necessary
to replace these very able men who are leaving.
As another footnote, and we are speaking of departing comrades,
Stuart Forth is leaving us to go to Penn State. Stuart Forth is not
going with my blessing although he is going anyway. I think he is
being lured away by a new title of Dean of Libraries and perhaps more
money than we could pay him, but, in any event, I would like to take
this occasion to say publicly how much I, and I think, speaking for
you, have valued his work here, not just in his particular field,
but, I think by common consent, Stuart has been a superb librarian
and those of you who spend more time in libraries than I am able to
these days know that really good librarians are hard to come by and
I must confess harder to keep. At any rate, we do wish Stuart well
and I have appointed a committee to begin a search for a successor
for our Librarian position.
While on the subject of personnel, I think I would also like to
announce the selection of our Academic Ombudsman for next year. It
is my pleasure to state that I have held conversations with the man
who was the number one recommendee of the Committee. We did discuss
this job and I was as frank with him as he was with me, and he has
informally accepted this position for next year. I see that he is here
this afternoon. I would like now to ask Professor Donald Diedrich
if he would rise and let us show our appreciation in advance.
Another matter of continuing interest is the matter of investi-
gations of alleged violations of academic offenses and other adminis—
trative violations in the Athletics Department. In the area of
academic offenses, at the conclusion of Dr. Cochran's investigation
the material which we had was turned over to the instructor of the
course. It involved, as you will recall from my last public state—
ment, two students. The professor, of record, has made his decision.
He has, I am told, informed both students of his action and his actions
are in conformity with the Rules of this body. That, I believe, is
all there is to be said about that particular aspect of the case.
As far as the tutorial program in the Athletics Department is
concerned, on the basis of the evidence that was made available to
me, I announced certain specific personnel actions that involved
persons then connected with the program. Both sets of actions had
to do with what I perceived to be matters of internal significance and
internal importance and internal standards of the University of
Kentucky. There has been a great deal of talk about NCAA and SEC
concerns. Those are legitimate and reasonable. Earlier, we re-
ceived an expression of interest in discussing this matter with us.
Representatives of those organizations have made a very brief visit
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 7 cont 3552
to this campus and we have sought to cooperate with them in every
way we can. You should know that I have delivered to the NCAA
representative a complete transcript of the reports that were
presented to me and that of this moment I have no further word
from them. The visit that I had with the representative of the
NCAA took place Thursday, a week ago, and at that time we placed
in his hands exactly what we had in fact. In the meantime our
own investigation is being continued by Professor Matthews, seeking
to find answers to some, as yet, unresolved points. But regardless
of what further interrogation may or may not disclose, I would like
to report to you two additional actions that I propose to take or
have already taken. Dr. Cochran returns to town tomorrow and
at that time I plan to ask him to appoint a faculty committee to
look into the administration of correspondence courses at UK and
I would hope that that committee would make appropriate recommendations
as to how that program might be tightened so as to eliminate oppor—
tunities for abuse by any student. In addition, we are proceeding
with a complete restructuring of the tutorial program in the Athletics
Department. I have instructed the Director of Athletics to begin
the search for a permanent head of that program —— someone with
appropriate academic credentials, preferably the Ph.D. I have also
asked that a set of guidelines be drafted for the proper function
of that office and that a clear job description be written for the
person who is to fill it. I want that to be fairly specific. I
want it to say what that program is for and what it is not for. I
want it to say what that person is to do and what that person is not
to do and to get this in some better focus than we have ever had
it. In addition, I expect that that position should be elevated at
least to the level of an assistant athletics directorship in order
to clarify the lines of authority and responsibility and to free the
director from any pressures that might be generated out of ambiguity
about the chain of command. I can report to you that there are
several candidates for that position and that we will be working on
that in the days and weeks ahead.
There is another topic that I think should be of some interest to
this group. About a week or ten days ago I spoke to the Department
heads, Deans, others, Directors, Community College people, about the
Affirmative Action program of the University. Many of you probably
heard of that. I would like to make some further and some abbreviated
comments about that for the benefit of those of you who may not have
attended that meeting. The Affirmative Action program has been at
one or another stage of development here for more than a year, and
I think that we are, at last, getting some kind of clear focus on it,
although there continues to be, I suspect, a good bit of misunder—
standing about it. I would have you understand that there are two concepts
involved, not one —— the concept of non—discrimination and the con—
cept of affirmative action. One is essentially negative which says,
in effect, stop doing some things, and the other is essentially
positive which says start doing some things. These come out of
federal law, of executive rulings and things that I would leave the
lawyers to explain to you. Nonetheless this institution, like the
others in the country, has come to a point in time where it's own
3553
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont
performance has been challenged, and I must tell you by looking at
the record, properly so. In the case of non—discrimination we were
visited just before Thanksgiving by the officials of the Department
of HEW. That was not a particularly successful affair, in my opinion.
They did visit the campus — they did talk to people around and they
did hold an exit interview with us in which they told us certain things
that they had found, and that they thought they were going to put in a
report. Under the HEW Guidelines they have thirty days to give us that
report. We have not received a report as of this date. I repeat, that
was the week before Thanksgiving. I say to you that in spite of that
fact, I think we have learned enough ourselves, by taking a look at this
institution, to know that we needed to move on anyway, regardless of
whether we ever hear from them or anybody else. And so we have moved
in the direction of creating an Affirmative Action program for the
University of Kentucky and that is what that meeting was about —— to
involve the chairmen and the people who are going to be at the hiring
level —- to inform them of these developments and to let them know just
exactly what the range of commitment and problem is. I am not going to
get into a long discussion of the issues that were raised and the problems
we had over records, and the problems we had over everything else. As
we move forward, though, in the Affirmative Action area, there is one
topic that continues to agitate many, many sections and many different
kinds of people, and the academic community, I think, in particular.
And that is the question that continues around goals and timetables.
The word "quota” inevitably pops up and it is a concept that, at least
to many people in the academic world, is anathema. It has been very
hard all the way through this to get any clear statement of the policy
changes from time to time, but in fairly recent times I think there has
been a fairly clear and concise statement that I believe is important
enough for you to hear. It runs to the point of making a distinction
between quota and goal, although they will be quick to tell you that
the goal is the numerical consequences of the plan; the plan must have
some numerical goals as a way to evaluate, at some point in the dis—
tant future, whether or not anything has been done. Let me, if I may,
read you very briefly this thing. I think it is the most significant
statement that has come out, so far, on this question:
Under a system Of goals an employer is never required to hire
a person who does not have qualifications needed to perform the
job successfully. And an employer is never required to hire
such an unqualified person in preference to a better—qualified
person, provided that the qualification used to make such relative
judgments realistically measures the person's ability to do the
job in question or other jobs, at which he is likely to progress.
The terms "less qualified", and "better qualified" as used in this
memorandum are not intended to distinguish among persons who are
substantially equally well qualified, in terms of being able to
perform their jobs successfully. Unlike quotas, therefore, which
may call for a preference for the unqualified over the qualified,
or the less qualified over the better qualified, to meet the
numerical requirement, a goal recognizes that persons are to be
judged on individual ability.
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont 3554
I think that is a fairly central point to be made in connection with
the academic problem.
To get back to the central question, we are going ahead with
an Affirmative Action plan which we will further, and we are en—
listing everybody on this campus to help make it a success. The
fundamental point that I made the other day, and I would like
to repeat now is it is a good one. It is clear, and it ought to
be clear. The University of Kentucky can do a better job than it
has done in recruiting and promoting and all the other things that are
involved with women and minorities — which are the protected groups
under the law. It is our intention to make that effort and I hope
to make it successful, relying on the widespread support of this
academic community to do that.
I will move now to the topic that occasioned this rather specific
invitation today and that has to do with the budget. I am talking
now about the operating budget at the University beginning July 1
of this next fiscal year. I have Mr. Clapp here with me and if you
have any questions, he will try to answer them. What I would like
to do is give you an overview of this so that you might have some
more understanding than perhaps you now have. I have talked to the
Trustees, and I have explained this budget as well as I could when
I presented it to them. I have had a meeting with the Deans and tried
to get before them this picture. I have met with the Senate Council
and talked with them, at some length, about this budget, and in this
day of breakdown of communication it is awfully hard to know where to
turn next to talk, but clearly your Chairman and I share the view that
this is a Body that perhaps does have some interest in this matter.
First of all let me make some generalizations about the budget
as it was presented and approved by the Board. Like all budgets in
recent times, it is the largest one this institution has ever had.
It is up 6 million dollars over the year before. It is up from 130
million dollars a year to 136 million dollars a year. Sixty eight
and a half million dollars of that is state money —- is appropriated
dollars. In other words, just about half of what goes into the
operation of the University of Kentucky is appropriated by this state.
I think you should know this as a matter of trend —— the state
appropriation in terms of total dollars is increasing, but the state
appropriation as a portion of our total budget is slightly decreasing.
That is a trend that has been going on, I gather, for several bienniums,
but you ought to have that picture. We are getting more money but
the total state input is a smaller percentage than it has been.
The next generalization that I would make seems to me the most
fundamental one of all, if you want any feel for just exactly why
this one is different in so many ways, and that is it is adopted
and going to be put into operation at a time when two currents are
at play that play havoc with whatever plans we make. Federal costs
that were unanticipated and that could BEE be anticipated at the
:.—._2;—v~
I
E
E
l:
i:
3555 Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont
time the biennial budget request was submitted, have been put upon us
I am talking about the Social Security
in the form of fixed costs.
increase, both in rate and base.
in Unemployment Compensation.
I am talking about the increase
I am talking about the necessity to
make some provision for the rise in the Minimum Wage Law. We don't
know what that is going to be yet, but we know it's coming very soon,
and as you can guess, like most university campuses, we have a large
amount of minimum wage work going on.
At the same time that we have
been hit by unanticipated costs of some magnitude, we are also ex—
periencing a federal reVersal, if you please, or change, the result
of which is either to cut back or completely eliminate many programs
that have been financed up to now by the Federal Government, presumably
that that money is going to go in the form of revenue sharing to the
states. I can tell you there is no requirement that when it gets to
the state it will continue to be used for what it was used before,
nor is there any clear understanding, at this point, that there will
be the same number of dollars available, but those are all different
aspects of that problem. Just to hit the high spot I would say that
while we are going to be affected pretty broadly on this campus,
there are two areas where I suspect it is going to be most critical.
One is in the area of medical education. The whole range of our five
colleges that are engaged in the medical side are feeling already, for
And the second area that I think is
It is
that matter, a tremendous shock.
going to be rather harshly affected is the area of student aid.
hard to know, at this point, because as you know, there is a rather
substantial battle going on between the Executive and the Legislature
over the student aid programs, and nobody knows whether the President
is going to veto what was passed just last week. At least, I haven't
We will be in a better position to com—
pute just where we are when we know what those figures are going to
be, but we are at the point now where it is dreadfully late for us to
be trying to plan for this year students who are coming back and who
have financial need and who are already in one or another program,
when we don't know whether there is even going to be funding for that
heard it as of this reading.
program. There is a great deal of uncertainty thrown into the system.
Very closely allied with that point is the next generalization
that I would make about the budget, and that is that it reflects a
substantial increase in income from student fees, and I want you to
You will recall that in—state tuition
went up $75 this year and that, at the same time that was done, the
listen to these statements.
Council also put a $75 increase on for next year.
and those figures are built
creasing, both in the total
the total percentage of our
of the state appropriation,
a matter of fact four years
nine per cent of the budget
year it will be at 11.3 per
into this budget. Student fees are in—
number of dollars that come to us, and in
budget.
It has exactly the reverse trend
and that is a matter of some concern. As
ago the student fees made up just under
of the University of Kentucky, and next
cent of the total operating budget. The
problem, I think, is self—evident:
at the rate we are increasing them.
but I would guess -— that $150.00 increase per biennium may be the
largest single increase ever made at the University of Kentucky for
in—state students. When you look at the per capita income and you
increasing costs, particularly
I haven't researched this -—
That is already there,
1
m
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont 3556
look at parts of this state and see the conditions there, you
cannot help but wonder just what impact this is going to have at
a time when, presumably, the national policy is to provide some
kind of opportunity for higher education for all those who are
capable. I would say this, because this is germane to a later point.
We took $40,000 off the top of whatever we had in the way of new
money -— and I will talk about that more precisely in a moment ——
and arbitrarily put it into student aid matching funds. Forty thousand
dollars, by itself, would not make much difference in terms of funding
but the beauty of this is that depending upon what legislation is
passed in Washington, that money gives us leverage. And we would
anticipate, depending upon just how the mix comes out, that that
additional $40,000 may bring in somewhere between $200,000 and
$400,000 in additional loan and grant funds for our students. So
built into this budget is that figure, as well.
Still another generalization is that this budget reflects our
attempts to move just one more step in the direction of implementing
a funded retirement program. No provision was made for a funded re-
tirement for either classified personnel or for that hard—to—identify
group called middle management, who are neither classified nor
faculty personnel. It is not that these people do not have some
retirement rights but that there is no funded program for those
rights and it means that as they retire, the funding of their re—
tirement must come out of the operating budget of the institution,
which I will tell you is a very poor way to run even a university.
One has to keep building the budget, based on fluctuations in re—
tirements and the size of the retirement pension. At any rate, since
1971 we have been tr in , with very modest and very limited funds, to
build an incremental program, taking one step at a time, so that we
can bring the other major groups of employees on this campus under a
funded retirement. We have taken another step in this budget, and
I would guess that this process, if it goes happily uninterrupted,
will be completed in 1976. At that time all of our employees will
be under a funded retirement program and we will have a fiscal
stability, in terms of budget-making, that we have never had and we
will have, in my judgment, a fairer program for the employees of this
University than we have ever had, and I think that is all to the good.
The matter that is closest to your hearts, I am sure, and one
that I would now talk about, goes to the problem that touches us all -—
the matter of salaries —— narrowing down to that specific topic.
I would like to review for you briefly the resources, and by
that I mean the new money, that were available to us for the year
coming up and work from that figure to show you how we got to where
we are. To those of you who are interested, Mr. Clapp and I would
be very happy to give you these figures. At the risk of boring you
I am going to use some of these figures now, because I think they are
important enough for you to know.
The first figure that comes to mind is that there is 4.7 million
dollars involved in money that was at our disposal, so to speak, for
all purposes not already undertaken, for the year coming. Two point
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont
seven (2.7) of that 4.7 came in state appropriation, either through
the General Fund appropriation, or through a $100,000 enrollemnt
increase which went either to the Community Colleges or to the
Medical Center. One point eight (1.8) million of that increase is
in student fees. There are a couple hundred thousand dollars that
came from what we anticipated to be additional or interest funds from
one source or another. But the figure I want you to get is that all
of this from these sources adds up to 4.7 million dollars that we be—
gan working with. That is not to say that we could take this 4.7
million dollars and do anything we wanted to with it. Built into
the budget itself, and to the request as made, were certain fixed costs
that have to be met first of all out of that 4.7 million dollars. I
will go through them very briefly. Our National Science Foundation
matching grant in Mathematics that I believe is in its last year runs
to $99,000. The Kellogg Grant for Allied Health —— a multi—year commit-
ment we made —— runs to $33,000. We have two new buildings —— the
Library and the Family Practice Building at the Medical Center which
will also house the Student Health Services. These two buildings are
going to come on line within the next year and we have to include
them in this budget. Then there is the maintenance and operation
dollars for these buidlings. We don't just build the building; we
also have to maintain it. That, too, becomes something of a dollar
burden. We have Social Security increases for the year; we have re—
tirement payments for the year; we have Workmen's Compensation. The
fact is that there was $372,000 worth of specific fixed costs written
into that budget and approved by the Legislature and these had to come
out of the 4.7 million dollars. In addition, we set aside another
$181,000 for new program money. These programs ran to the creation of
some kind of opportunity in Southwest Jefferson as an adjunct to the
Jefferson Community College —— a very small amount of money —— but
it is in there nonetheless. There was money in there to help with
the very critical problem that we had at the Jefferson Community
College which was the fastest growing element anywhere in the System,
and the one about which something had to be done. They were literally
inundated. And then there was the $50,000 amount for the implementa—
tion of the Family Practice Program. So when the fixed costs and the
programs that were identified in the budget are added up, we have over
a half—million dollars already gone.
The next bite came out of our 4.7 million from that portion of
it that was based on enrollment increases. That was very close to
$100,000. There was no enrollment increase in the Division of Colleges;
in fact, there was a slight drop. The enrollment increase money was
divided between the Community Colleges and the Medical Center, based
on the actual rate of growth assumed there. These dollars are speci—
fically set aside to go where the students are; thus this $100,000
(approximate) came out.
Then came, I think, the most hurtful blow of all: those items I
mentioned earlier that were not included in the biennial budget re-
quests. In the area of fixed—Epsts let me sample one for you. I men—
tioned Social Security. The change in that rate and base meant that
this institution had to find $747,000 to put in to that. Now that is
money that is going into programs for the faculty and staff.
V“
V‘
Minutes of the University Senate, April 30, 1973 — cont 3558
Nonetheless, it was money not budgeted. There was not any way to
have anticipated that or_to have gotten the money if we had
anticipated it, in all prObability. NOnetheless, there was no
option on our part of whether to cont